Hawkins v. United States of America et al

Filing 80

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 76 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (MJV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

SABELITA HAWKINS,

11

v.

12
13

Defendants.

15

17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER

Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,

14

16

CASE NO. C16-0498JLR

I.

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is Plaintiff Sabelita Hawkins’s motion for reconsideration of the
court’s October 9, 2024 order granting Defendant the United States of America’s (the
“United States”) motion for a protective order and denying Ms. Hawkins’s request for an
extension of time to respond to that motion. (MFR (Dkt. # 76); Sykes Decl. (Dkt. # 78);
see also MPO (Dkt. # 72); 10/9/24 Order (Dkt. # 75).) The court DENIES Ms. Hawkins’s
motion for reconsideration.

ORDER - 1

II.

1
2

BACKGROUND 1 AND ANALYSIS

A motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy . . . to be used

3

sparingly” and the movant bears a “heavy burden.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of

4

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “The court will ordinarily deny such motions

5

in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts

6

or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with

7

reasonable diligence.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. 7(h)(1).

8
9

Ms. Hawkins argues that the following “new facts” support her request for
reconsideration: (1) Ms. Hawkins’s counsel was taking new medications “that were

10

affecting her memory and ability to concentrate” when Ms. Hawkins filed her September

11

26, 2024 response to the motion for protective order; (2) Ms. Hawkins “did not interpret”

12

the court’s February 6, 2023 order as setting February 13, 2023 “as the final deadline” for

13

liability discovery; and (3) Ms. Hawkins “never received [responses to] the supplemental

14

interrogatories related to the new records” from the United States. (MFR at 4-5; see also

15

MFR at 2 (“[Ms. Hawkins] bring[s] to the Court’s attention new facts that [she] could not

16

have brought to the attention of the Court earlier”); 2/6/23 Order (Dkt. # 64) (granting the

17

parties’ stipulated motion to extend the deadline for the United States to respond to Ms.

18

Hawkins’s supplemental interrogatories and to complete damages discovery to February

19

5, 2024).) The court addresses each of Ms. Hawkins’s arguments below.

20
21
22

1

The court detailed the factual and procedural background of this case in its October 9,
2024 order and does not repeat that background here, except as necessary to the court’s analysis.
(See 10/9/24 Order at 2-4.)
ORDER - 2

1

A. The Medications.

2

Ms. Hawkins asks the court to reconsider its denial of her extension request

3

because two new medications “were affecting her [counsel’s] memory and ability to

4

concentrate.” (MFR at 2, 4-5.) She asserts that these side effects “explain why [her

5

counsel] could not have responded substantively” to the United States’s motion for

6

protective order between September 20, 2024 and September 26, 2024. (MFR at 4

7

(quoting 10/9/24 Order).) Ms. Hawkins’s counsel represents that she was “unaware” of

8

these side effects at the time she prepared her September 26 response to the motion for

9

protective order and that counsel did not learn of these side effects until she attended a

10

post-operative appointment with her physician on October 10, 2024—two weeks after she

11

filed the response. (MFR at 4; see also Sykes Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) 2

12

Ms. Hawkins asserts that these facts provide “[g]ood cause” to extend her deadline

13

to respond to the United States’s motion for protective order. (MFR at 4-5 (citing Fed. R.

14

Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).) Ms. Hawkins does not explain, however, how the side effects

15

counsel learned about after-the-fact would have prevented counsel from filing a

16

substantive response to the United States’s motion for protective order between

17

September 20 and September 26, when she in fact filed a nonsubstantive response on

18
19
20
21
22

2

Ms. Hawkins cites Exhibit A of the Sykes Declaration—an October 10, 2024 letter from
counsel’s physician—to support her assertion that her counsel first learned about the side effects
of her new medications on October 10, 2024. (MFR at 4 n.15.) The court notes, however, that
counsel’s medications are not mentioned at all in the October 10, 2024 letter—they are
mentioned in the letter dated October 22, 2024. (See generally Sykes Decl., Ex. A; see Sykes
Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.)
ORDER - 3

1

September 26. (See generally MPO Resp. (Dkt. # 73).) The court does not find these

2

“new facts” persuasive.

3

B. The Liability Discovery Deadline.

4

The court’s October 9, 2024 order provides in part that “neither party shall serve

5

any further discovery in this case related to liability[.]” (10/9/24 Order at 5.) Ms.

6

Hawkins asks the court to reconsider this part of the order because she “did not interpret”

7

the court’s February 6, 2023 order as setting February 13, 2023 as the final deadline for

8

liability discovery. (See MFR at 5 (citing 2/3/23 Joint Stip. (Dkt. # 63).) Rather, Ms.

9

Hawkins understood that the parties had agreed to extend all discovery deadlines past

10

February 13, 2023. (See id. (citing 2/3/23 Joint Stip).)

11

An analysis of Ms. Hawkins’s claim requires an understanding of the procedural

12

history of this case. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded this matter, the

13

court set the discovery completion deadline on February 13, 2023. (6/24/22 Sched. Order

14

(Dkt. # 60).) On January 13, 2023, the parties submitted a joint status report regarding

15

“recently discovered” additional treatment providers whom Ms. Hawkins had not

16

previously disclosed. (1/13/23 JSR (Dkt. # 61).) The parties sought an extension of the

17

trial date and pretrial deadlines so the United States could “collect and review the records

18

of these additional treatment providers” and because the parties “need[ed] to update the

19

damage discovery following the receipt of these records.” (2/3/23 Joint Stip. at 2.) The

20

court granted the parties’ stipulated motion; continued trial to June 3, 2024; and reset the

21

discovery completion deadline to February 5, 2024. (See 2/6/23 Order (Dkt. # 64) at 5;

22

2/7/23 Sched. Order (Dkt. # 65).)
ORDER - 4

1

A week before the February 5, 2024 discovery deadline, Ms. Hawkins requested a

2

further continuance of the trial and related pretrial deadlines. (1/29/24 Mot. (Dkt. # 66) at

3

1.) 3 Ms. Hawkins represented that the additional extension was necessary for the

4

following reasons:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(1) [The] Parties received, nearly three thousand pages, of the discovery from
the Plaintiff’s, Ms. Sabelita Hawkins, additional treatment providers, which
were not previously disclosed in 2016; (2) The United States has already
collected and reviewed the updated discovery; (3) the United States will need
to respond to the Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatories; (4) the United
States need[s] to depose Ms. Hawkins to inquire into the additional records
and (5) Additionally, the parties will also need to update the damage
discovery following the receipt of these records.
(1/29/24 Mot. at 5.) The court again continued the trial date and reset the discovery
deadline on October 15, 2024 based on the representation that the extension was needed
to “update the damage discovery following receipt of the new records.” (2/5/24 Order
(Dkt. # 69) at 2; see also 2/7/24 Sched. Order (Dkt. # 70).)
Ms. Hawkins now argues that the parties agreed to extend both the liability and
damages discovery deadlines beyond February 13, 2023. (See generally MFR.) She
bases this assertion on language in the parties’ stipulation stating that “[t]he February 13,
2023 discovery deadline d[id] not provide the parties sufficient time to prepare
discovery and update the damage discovery following the receipt of” the additional
records. (MFR at 5-6 (citing 2/3/23 Joint Stip. at 3) (emphasis in original).) Ms.
Hawkins asserts that the conjunction “and” indicates “two separate items that both parties
were working on.” (MFR at 6.)

3

The United States did not oppose this request. (See id.)

ORDER - 5

1

As a threshold matter, this argument is too late, as Ms. Hawkins could have

2

“brought [this argument] to [the court’s] attention” in her September 26 response to

3

United States’s motion for protective order. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. 7(h)(1).

4

Furthermore, the court finds no merit in Ms. Hawkins’s argument. The parties have

5

consistently represented that extensions of the trial date and pretrial deadlines were

6

necessary so the “United States . . . [can] collect and review the records of th[e]

7

additional treatment providers” and the parties can “update the damage discovery

8

following the receipt of these records.” (1/13/23 JSR at 1; see 2/3/23 Joint Stip. at 3;

9

2/6/23 Order (entering 2/3/23 Joint Stip.); 1/29/24 Mot. at 2.) As the court made clear in

10

its October 9, 2024 order, the court extended the trial date and pretrial deadlines based on

11

this representation. (10/9/24 Order at 5.) Accordingly, the court will not reconsider its

12

October 9, 2024 order on these grounds.

13

C. Ms. Hawkins’s Supplemental Discovery.

14

Ms. Hawkins also asks the court to reconsider the part of its October 9, 2024 order

15

providing that “the United States need not respond to Ms. Hawkins’s September 6, 2024

16

requests for admission[.]” (MFR at 5; see 10/9/24 Order at 5-6.) As relevant here, the

17

United States moved the court to order that it need not respond to 63 requests for

18

admission served by Ms. Hawkins because the requests were “directed toward

19

liability.” (See MPO at 3-4; see id., Ex. A at 11-33.) Ms. Hawkins has not challenged

20

the United States’s characterization of the requests for admission. (See generally MPO

21

Resp.; MFR.)

22
ORDER - 6

1

Ms. Hawkins contends that she served the requests for admission because the

2

United States “[did] no[t] answer [her prior] supplemental interrogatories[.]” 4 This

3

argument does not change the court’s analysis. Setting aside the substance of the

4

discovery requests, “[a] motion to compel is [the] appropriate [remedy] when a party fails

5

to provide responses to interrogatories[.]” Beckner v. El Cajon Police Dept., No.

6

07-cv-0059-W (BLM), 2008 WL 2033708, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2008). Ms. Hawkins

7

did not file such a motion before the discovery deadline expired. (See generally Dkt.)

8

Therefore, this argument is also too late.

9

Accordingly, the court concludes that Ms. Hawkins has not met her “heavy

10

burden” to justify reconsideration of the court’s prior decision. See Kona Enters., Inc.,

11

229 F.3d at 890.
III.

12
13
14
15

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Ms. Hawkins’s motion for
reconsideration of the court’s October 9, 2024 order (Dkt. # 76).
Dated this 28th day of October, 2024.

A

16

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22

4

It is not clear from the record when Ms. Hawkins served these interrogatories on the
United States or what the interrogatories covered, but Ms. Hawkins’s motion suggests that the
interrogatories were served sometime before the court’s February 5, 2024 order, and may have
covered issues relating to liability. (See MFR at 5.)
ORDER - 7